Page 4 of 48 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 473

Thread: Eli James (Joe November) &

  1. #31

    Re: Pastor James rebuked by Pastor Wickstrom

    Yeah, there is... and most of it is coming from Mad Marty. Not all, but most.

    Eli James, despite sometimes going out on strange limbs, is a good guy and a good pastor.

    The preterism nonsense was started by Lindstedt and Britton, who don't understand what preterism is. Preterism is the belief that all prophecy was fulfilled by 70AD with the destruction of Herod's temple. James, Finck, and others are historicists... the historicist says that the Book of Revelation is in the process of being fulfilled. Where we are in that book is a different matter.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Alpha_and_Omega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Jew Bedford, Massajewsetts

    Re: Pastor Eli James &

    Here's a recent E-mail I received from Pastor Eli James (I'm subscribed to his newsletter) regarding the subject(s) I mentioned above from his Beast of the Field article...


    Christian Israelites: I have been trying to avoid a schism within the two-seedline community, but Clifton Emahiser has thrown down the gauntlet.

    The issue is this: Did Yahweh create the other races?

    I say that the Bible clearly states that He did. The proof is Gen. 3:1, which states, "Now the serpent was more subtle than any BEAST OF THE FIELD WHICH YAHWEH ELOHIM HAD MADE."

    Clifton asserts that the "beast of the field" cannot be a hominid. But every other two-seedliner I know of has stated that they are hominids. This includes such notable two-seedliners as Dr. Wesley Swift, Bertrand Comparet, Jason Blaha, Nord Davis,. Conrad Gaard, and many others.

    Emahiser has gone out on a limb, promoting a doctrine that cannot be demonstrated from history, archeology or Scripture. This Newsletter is my first salvo against his so-called "Recapitulation Theory," which distorts natural history and Bible. I have already issued a challenge to William Finck, who supports this theory, to an on-air debate.

    The Bible says that we should not have private interpretations of Scripture. When you resort to redefining words, such as 'chay,' and ignoring passages of Scripture, such as the Day of Rest, then you are inventing a private interpretation.

    For those of you who are interested, here is my rebuttal of Clifton's position. I listed Bill as "undecided" on this issue, based on statements he made on the Clay Douglas show, to the effect that "the other races cannot be ruled out at Gen. 1:24." Apparently Bill has changed his mind. Bill has taken up Clifton's cause; but I will not back down.

    Yahweh did in fact create the other races, just as Gen. 3:1 states. They were created the 6th "day," in Gen. 1:23-24, just BEFORE the creation of the White Race (Awdawm) in Gen. 1:26-27. These verses clearly state that the Adamic Race was created male and female, just like all of the other species were created both male and female. But Clifton Emahiser believes that our race was created male first and female second, because that is what is stated in Gen. 2. But Gen. 2 is NOT about the creation of our Race. It is about the special selection of THE MAN ADAM and THE WOMAN EVE in the Garden, from the already existing White Race. This view jives with natural history, archeology and Scripture.



    Pastor Eli James
    William P. Gale on the existence of the other races before the Garden of Eden:

    Understanding that Jesus Christ is the One we call “God,” and that He has children on the earth, we should learn who those children are. We should also believe the Scripture when it tells us that there are people on the earth who are NOT the children of God. The Bible is clear that there was a “creation.” There were ages or cycles of time during the ages of the creation. In order to understand the “creation,” we must understand the Book of Genesis and that Genesis, in the first chapter, is a synopsis to cover possibly millions of years in one little chapter. We read that there were people created during the ages or cycles of the creation and these people were all living on earth prior to the arrival of Adam and Eve on this planet. Note in Chapter 2, vs. 4 of Genesis, that “these are the generations (races) of the heavens and of the earth WHEN THEY WERE CREATED, in the day (age) that the Lord God MADE the earth and the heavens." Notice in verse 5 of this same chapter that there was NOT A MAN to till the ground. The word “man” is translated from the word ADAM. Also notice here that Adam is brought into the Bible story AFTER God had rested the 7th day (age) of the CREATIONS and that Adam was NOT of the creation ages, and he was NOT created. In verse 7 of Chapter 2 of Genesis we read, “And the Lord God FORMED MAN (Adam) of the dust of the ground” when they should have used the words “in the terrestrial plane.” We use the word terra firma or terrestrial to refer to the earth in many other usages. Why not here?

    At this point we believe the theologians have missed the boat. They have failed to search the Scripture. We see in Genesis 2: 23 that Adam is the Hebrew “Ish” and Eve Isha". The word “Ish” means progeny of offspring and an English translation would be the word “SON.” Luke testifies to this fact in the genealogy of Jesus Christ which he traces back to Adam. (See Luke 3: 38 “…which was the son (Ish) of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the SON OF GOD.”)

    Adam’s entry on earth dates back some 7,400 years, yet there is sound scientific evidence that people existed on earth even 1,750,000 years ago. Carbon-14 tests have been applied to the bones of African blacks that have been found in the cages of Kilimanjaro, which date back approximately 73,000 years. There is also a history of Asiatic Sumerin dynasties which date back possibly as far as 400,000 years or more. It is no wonder that many intelligent people who are aware of these archeological and scientific findings, become skeptical of the Bible. Some even reject it and become agnostics. Having been taught by irresponsible clergy that all races of mankind descend form Adam and Eve, people do not have the facts and are unable to reconcile the findings of scientists and archeologists, which prove that the earth was inhabited by Asiatics and Negroes long BEFORE the advent of Adam and Eve.

    Adam and Eve did arrive upon the earth about 7,400 years ago, but there were other races of people here prior to their arrival, races that had been on the earth over a million years. Adam, the father of the Adamic (White) race was the latest to arrive. Many archeologists agree that the White race appeared upon the earth suddenly and with a high state of civilization, a written language, and superior in every way to the races preceding it. While there are histories and scientific records concerning the earlier races, there is no record of the White race prior to 5,500 B.C. and this is in agreement with Bible chronology for the arrival of Adam and Eve upon the earth. The Bible is not the history of ALL races. It is the history and guidebook fo the WHITE RACE and begins with Adam. See Genesis 5:1, “This is the book of the generation (race) of Adam". Therefore, since Adam was the first White man, the Asiatic and black races could not have come from him. One cannot be older than his father. It is sheer folly to claim that God would violate His Own Law that kind begets like kind, and bring forth black and yellow people from white parents (Adam and Eve).
    Item: Second link to Beast of theField

    Some people have told me that the link at has readability problems, so here is another link:


  3. #33

    Emahiser severs all ties to Eli James [Thursday, 27 January 2011 20:46]


    Contrary to what some may believe, I have never had a close association with Eli James and his ministry! He’s just one of many people who was on my Clifton A. Emahiser’s Watchman’s Teaching Letter postal mailing list which I started in May, 1998, being free of charge to the recipient. Eli has never donated to my ministry, so I don’t owe him anything, nor does he owe me anything.

    I don’t remember how Eli got on my mailing list, but at that time he was using the alias of “Joe (Joseph) November”, so evidently he had something to hide! About five or six years ago, Eli wanted to have a meeting in Ohio to write a position paper (so he said) on Two Seedline Doctrine, whereupon I was able to secure a place to meet. But upon getting into the meetings, his agenda was entirely different than he promised me, showing he was not a man of his word, and that was the end of that!

    Over the years, I have become gradually aware that there are many things which Eli promotes which I consider un-Biblical, and find it my Christian duty to address, and I haven’t pulled any punches in doing so. In the process, I have received both destructive and constructive criticism which I willingly accept, but when my statements are completely taken out-of-context and twisted into something I never said, I consider it an affront. Eli James has done this very thing to my writings many times, and I had to finally call a halt to it by completely disassociating what little affiliation we had.


    For an example of Eli James’ careless jockeying with Holy Writ, I will cite his The Great Impersonation, page 113:

    “... That we are confronted with two types of man [at Genesis chapters 1 & 2] is confirmed by the fact that in Hebrew there are two different words for the English word ‘Adam’: #119, adam, pronounced aw-dam and #120, adam, pronounced aw-dawm. The meaning of adam, #119 is ‘to show blood in the face.’ This, of course, can only mean the white race of Adamites. No other race shows blood in the face. The meaning of adam, #120 is ‘a human being’ with the connotation of being ‘mean’ or ‘of low degree.’ But this matter of higher and lower degree only applied to Adam (the individual) before he fell. After the fall, Adamic man became as mortal as all other men. So, we have two reasons, two witnesses for saying that awdawm and awdam are not the same. Awdawm was created on the sixth day and Awdam was created after the seventh day. ...”

    First of all, Strong’s #119 does not appear in the Old Testament until Exo. 25:5 where it says: “And rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins, and shi'tim wood ...” In fact, Strong’s #119 appears only ten times in the Old Testament, and always has the meaning of the color “red” (Adam’s color), just the opposite to what Eli is promoting! This assertion on Eli’s part is simply unforgivable! The other nine times that Strong’s #119 is used is at Exo. 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19; 39:34; Pro. 23:31; Isa. 1:8; Lam. 4:7; Nah. 2:3.

    Secondly, and more importantly the “man” at Gen. 1:26, 27 and Gen. 2:7, 8 are all (four times) the Strong’s #120 (three times as “eth-ha-ADM”, and once as “ADM” only), and not a single one is Strong’s #119! Eli James is one of the three: (1) lazy, (2) ignorant, or (3) highly dishonest! Take your pick! Then Eli goes on to state: “The meaning of adam, #119 is ‘to show blood in the face.’ This, of course, can only mean the white race of Adamites. No other race shows blood in the face. The meaning of adam, #120 is ‘a human being’ with the connotation of being ‘mean’ or ‘of low degree’.” By this hocus-pocus slight-of-hand, Eli applies all of Strong’s #120 to the “other races” category! For practical purposes, Strong #’s 119, 120 & 121 are all the same identical Hebrew word applied to different parts of speech!

    Actually, Eli made a drastic error using the phrase, “‘mean’ or ‘of low degree’”, as had he read Strong’s “SIGNS EMPLOYED” at the front of Strong’s Hebrew And Chaldee Dictionary, he might have realized that everything after “:–” is only some of the renderings by the KJV, and one needs to find those passages to understand the context. Strong’s definition of all the Hebrew and Greek words are previous to “:–”. Therefore a man (#120) “of low degree” can be found only at Psa. 62:9 which reads: “Surely men [120] of low degree are vanity, and men [376] of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity.” This is a lesson to trust in Yahweh for salvation rather than man (vv. 7 & 8)! Eli wrongly used men “of low degree” as a definition rather than a KJV rendering, and he didn’t take the time to find it. Strong’s only definition for #120 is: “... ruddy, i.e. a human being ... (an individual or the species, mankind ...”. Here’s the evidence, so judge for yourself. But I would hate to send Eli to the grocery store, for it is hard to tell what he might come back with!

    Because Eli James has adopted this and many detrimental teachings, I have decided to completely curtail what little affiliation I had with him and his ministry, so people will not equate his false doctrines with my ministry!
    And Uzziah prepareth for them, for all the host, shields, and spears, and helmets, and coats of mail, and bows, even to stones of the slings. -- 2 Chron. 26:14

  4. #34

    Re: Emahiser severs all ties to Eli James

    William Finck weighs in:

    Unmasking Eli James

    I have worked with Eli James for over two years, and have found those years to be productive and enjoyable. However sooner or later the tree always shows its fruit. Here, absolutely contrary to any claims ever made by a Two-Seedline Christian Identity Pastor, and contrary to all Biblical teaching, Eli James asserts that Yahweh will save even His sworn enemies! How is this not Universalism?

    This excerpt was from Eli's Voice of Christian Israel program, beginning around the 63-minute mark, on Sunday, January 23rd, 2011.

    And Uzziah prepareth for them, for all the host, shields, and spears, and helmets, and coats of mail, and bows, even to stones of the slings. -- 2 Chron. 26:14

  5. #35

    Re: Emahiser severs all ties to Eli James

    Saint SwordBrethren of CI interviews Eli about this:


    There's a thread about it here.

  6. #36

    Re: Emahiser severs all ties to Eli James

    Quote Originally Posted by Solomon View Post
    Saint SwordBrethren of CI interviews Eli about this:


    There's a thread about it here.
    This debate proves eli's crooked after hearing this eli's most likely a mongrel or jew himself and great job sword brethren on calling him out.

  7. #37

    Re: Emahiser severs all ties to Eli James

    It saddens me that there's so much infighting in our truth movement:

    Most of my remarks in the Open Forum program last night (July 4th, 2011) were off-the-cuff. But I did - rather hastily - type these out before the program, so that I could adequately address some of the things which I saw in Eli's articles contained in the latest New Ensign Magazine. So I thought I would share them here.

    Of course, I am certain (to borrow a trick from Lindstench, although he certainly did not invent it) that WorrierSonofDaisy, BillGstring, mouthypatricia, SonofthePiss, Schlocktrader Dan, and gregcoward are all quite comfortable with Eli's universalism. (And yes, they have all earned their new names, for encouraging and even vehemently defending a man who is obviously ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, and so he invents his own gospel. It is fine for Eli and these others to consider themselves Catholics - or of some other sect - but they sure as hell are not Chrisitan Israel Identists! Rather, they are all charlatans.)

    Click on the PDF icon below for a copy of the magazine containing the articles in question.

    Click here for a copy of the July 2011 New Ensign Magazine.

    Not that we are promoting it, but only present it to make Eli's articles available so that his perfidy can be seen by all.
    In the latest New Ensign Magazine Editorial, Eli explains that the Hebrew word for salvation, and I quote: "It ALWAYS [stressed with all capital letters] refers to the physical welfare and preservation of the people of Israel."


    Salvation for Israel means preservation in this life, but not only for those still living as a nation. It also means a return to this body of flesh in a perfected state, for all Israelites who have died, as Paul explains at length in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, and as we see elsewhere in Scripture, such as at Job 19:25 where it states: "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: 27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me. 28 But ye should say, Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in me? 29 Be ye afraid of the sword: for wrath bringeth the punishments of the sword, that ye may know there is a judgment.

    Fully, salvation means the preservation and resurrection of the entire race. It is BOTH temporal AND eternal, and everywhere it is only promised to Adamites, for nobody else has the promise because nobody else matters.Bt this is where Eli really drives off the cliff. Even though in his editorial he claims that salvation is exclusive to Israel, he has already said that salvation is ALWAYS refers to the physical welfare and preservation of the people of Israel. Yet in his beast of the field paper he goes on to explain that the non-White races are to be preserved - and even blessed!

    In the first article of that same New Ensign magazine, Beast Of The Field (Part 5), Eli states the following:

    Since hybrid offspring are not guilty of any sin, Yahweh will not punish them for that alone ... Rather, they will be allowed to die off.

    Hybrids are not themselves guilty of sin (unless they themselves procreate). Yet the very existence of hybrids IS sin. Their very existence blasphemes Yahweh the Spirit-God of Genesis who said "kind after kind". Therefore Yahshua said "every plant which My Heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up." So Eli denies Christ. Eli is creating a "different gospel" because he is ashamed of the real gospel.

    Eli goes on to say: "The Blacks will go back to Africa. The Orientals will go back to China. The Mexicans will be sent back to Mexico. The Jewsraeli Viper State will be wiped off the face of the map; and we Adamites will keep the lands that Yahweh has given to us. And there will be peace and prosperity everywhere, after Adamkind gets restored to the condition intended for our parents, Adam and Eve."

    But Ezekiel tells us that of all these people who surround and invade the lands of Israel shall be destroyed in those lands, and that it will take us seven months to bury the bodies. Eli's message is a carefully crafted universalism, And it is not much different than Roman Catholicism under the Jesuits, where the church intended to rule over all the other races through Portuguese, Spanish and French imperialism. The results of that folly are obvious.

    Christ tells us that from the kingdom of heaven there shall be gatherd of every race, and out of them all, all but the sheep go into the fire. Eli is trying to tell us that there are other kinds of fish, besides those which are either good or bad. Eli has invented a gospel crafted to make the world - and the CI message - comfortable formamzers. I will have no part of it.

    Eli should also explain himself, where he states that "If Mr. Emahiser has a different interpretation of Matt. 15:22-29, let him declare himself. By the way, that passage concludes with the words, O woman, great is your faith: be it given unto you even as you will. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” Even though shewas a “dog,” not an Israelite! Would that all of True Israel had that kind of faith!!! Yahshua did not say to her, “Go to hell. You’re a Canaanite.” Given what I know about Jews, however, I doubt that more than one-tenth of one percent will bend the knee to Yahshua Messiah. And those who do will have a very high percentage of White DNA, as opposed to viper DNA." Again, it seems to me as if Eli is trying to save some jews - as he was on January 29th when Sword Brethren had to inform him that people who were 85% white were indeed NOT WHITE. Gray is not white! Why is Eli always trying to leave a crack in the door for people with jewish blood going theough their veins? I guess it wouldn't have anything to do with his real name.

    Eli would see some jews "bend the knee" to Yahshua, but Yahshua has an answer for them too, where He said: "26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." (Luk 13:26-28 KJV)

  8. #38
    Hardcore DSCI seedliner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Hell On Earth!

    The Parable of Ruth

    The Parable of Ruth
    By Pastor Eli James

    “Let Reuben live and not die; and let not his men be few.” - Deut. 33:6.
    “Woe to you, Moab, You are destroyed, O people of Chemosh. He has given up his sons as fugitives and his daughters as captives to Sihon, king of the Amorites.” – Num. 21:29.

    Introduction: Ruth, the “Moabitess”

    The Story of Ruth has been treated only as a historical account of one of the ancestors in the line of Yahshua. Ruth’s second husband, Boaz, was a Patriarch of that lineage. Ruth and Boaz bore Obed, the father of Jesse, and grandfather of David. Much speculation has been purveyed about Ruth’s racial ancestry. Those who preach the gospel of race-mixing insist that Ruth was a non-Israelite. A careful reading of the text proves otherwise, as Ruth is called the near kinswoman of Boaz. (Ruth 3:12.) Boaz’s exact words to her are, “And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.”
    This verse alone should silence all of the false teachers, who slander Ruth as being a non-Israelite. In Chapter 4, Boaz proceeds to redeem the property of Ruth’s deceased husband, Mahlon. Since only the Israelites had such a redemptory custom, this is more proof that both Ruth and Mahlon were Israelites. It is evident from the Book of Ruth that Mahlon had moved into this territory, which was formerly occupied by the tribe of Moab, with his mother, Naomi. The mere fact that Ruth lived in the territory of Moab proves nothing about her ancestry. The same is true for an Irish woman living in America. Her living in America is not to be construed as proof that she is not Irish. Living in America does not erase her Irish ancestry. The same is true for Ruth.
    Furthermore, the name, Moab, was already anachronistic in the days of Ruth, as the Moabites had long since been destroyed as a nation and people. For nearly two hundred years, up to the days of Ruth, the name of Moab lived on only as a territorial name.
    Here is a thumbnail sketch of the history of that territory, as the land of Moab before Ruth:
    The territory of the Moabites was originally east and north east of the Dead Sea. Moab's borders extended from the Arnon River on the south to the Jabbok River on the north, from the Dead Sea and Jordan River on the west to the mountains on the east. It was called Moab after the people who once lived there.
    The Moabites, who once lived in this territory, were destroyed by the Amorites around 1450 B.C., while the Israelites were engaged in their exodus experience in the Sinai desert. The Moabites were conquered and driven from their land by Sihon, king of the Amorites.
    "For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon. Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon, king of the Amorites." - Numbers 21:26-29.
    Later on, these Amorites were destroyed by the invading Israelites, leaving no trace of either the Moabites or the Amorites. Here is the Biblical account: "Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And Yahweh Elohim delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:" - Deuteronomy 2:32-34.
    The book of Numbers gives a few more details: "We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba. Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. And Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there. And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei. And the Lord said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon, king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land." - Numbers 21:30-35.
    Thus, the history of this former territory of Moab is that it contained no Moabites at all while Ruth was living there!
    Furthermore, it would have been a violation of Yahweh’s law for a Judahite to marry a racial Moabite. “An Ammonite or Moabite SHALL NOT ENTER into the congregation of Yahweh…Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days forever.” (Deut. 23:3-6.) Nehemiah 13:1-3 confirms this fact. Yahweh would break His own rules by allowing a racial Moabitess to enter the seedline of Yahshua Messiah. That is out of the question.
    The tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh were weary of wandering through the wilderness. They saw that the territory of Moab was fertile and asked Moses his permission to settle there. "And this land, which we possessed at that time, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, and half mount Gilead, and the cities thereof, gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites. And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashanhavothjair, unto this day. And I gave Gilead unto Machir. (16) And unto the Reubenites and unto the Gadites I gave from Gilead even unto the river Arnon half the valley, and the border even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of
    Ammon.” – Deut. 3:12-16.
    The story of Ruth takes place only three generations before David, proving that the land of Moab was in Israelite hands during the entire judges period. The book of Judges gives us more details: "And Jephthah (of Israel) sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land? And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably.” But Jephthah refuted the Ammonite claim, reciting Israel’s past victories over the Moabites and the Amorites. (Judges 11:12-26.)
    The Bible itself proves that Ruth lived in Israelite territory her whole life. Hence, she was not a Moabitess by race. The Moabites were long gone before the days of Ruth. The story of Ruth takes place just before the days of Samuel the prophet, who anointed Saul as the first King of Israel. The Israelites were in total control of this former Moabite territory, and the few Moabites that were still living had been banished from this territory or merged with the Canaanite populations, which had always been totally separate from the Israelites. Knowing our own history makes all the difference in the world. Judeo fairy tales have replaced real scholarship. Ruth was an Israelite woman living in the former territory of Moab.
    More than likely, she was a daughter of the tribe of Reuben. In her own words, she says to Boaz, “Your people are my people. Your God is my God.” She did not say, “your people WILL BE my people,” as the KJV has it, as those words were ADDED by the translators.

    Harlots and Innkeepers

    Before proceeding with the Parable of Ruth, there is another woman, whose reputation must be cleared: Rahab, the mother of Boaz, who is supposed to be a Canaanite harlot. Let’s see if this fable has any merit.
    RK Phillips, in his study entitled, “The Truth About Rahab,” has this to say:
    Deuteronomy, the Book of God's Royal Law, Chapter 7, makes it very plain that when the Israelites cross the Jordan into Canaan:
    a. they were to destroy the entire population of those lands and everything that lived, including the cattle, sheep and asses;
    b. they were NOT to make marriages with any of those peoples themselves, nor allow their sons and daughters to marry any of the descendants of those peoples.
    It is quite evident that the Israelites of that generation which finally crossed the Jordan did observe these commandments. After the initial set-back at Ai was sorted out, their unbroken success in conquering the land for the next 30 years was proof positive that not one man dared to disobey even the least of those commandments — for they suffered swift and fatal consequences every time they stepped out of line.
    Who, then, was this female ancestor of our Lord — Rachab — who is stated, in Matthew 1:5, to have married Salmon the son of Naashon, a prince of the Royal line of Judah, some time either before or after the Israelites occupied the Promised Land?
    Every Bible translator and commentator, without exception, associates her with, or directly identifies her as `Rahab the harlot' who was saved alive from the massacre of Jericho. But the foregoing evidence shows that after the debacle at the first battle for Ai, no Israelite had dared to disobey God by marrying a Canaanite or any other foreign woman for at least 30 years after crossing the Jordan. Furthermore, Leviticus 21:7,14, state that no priest of God's Tabernacle was to take a harlot for his wife, and verse 9 states that if even the daughter of a priest played the harlot, she was to be killed and burnt in the fire.
    Therefore, in view of these severe strictures, it is beyond the bounds of possibility for Jesus, who was (ed. is) a Priest after the Order of Melchisedek, to be the descendant of that `Rahab' who was saved out of Jericho unless it could be proved that she was neither a harlot nor a Canaanitess by race. It has already been proved, by the evidence of Scripture itself, that Ruth — who is similarly claimed by all the churches and commentators to be a heathen Moabitess — was neither a heathen foreigner nor was she a Moabitess by race, but a true daughter of Israel who lived in that land of Moab which the Israelites had taken from the Amorites. That land was still called Moab even though it was occupied by the tribe of Reuben until they were taken into captivity several hundred years later — 1 Chronicles 5:8,16,18-26. What, then, has Scripture to say concerning Rahab of Jericho? Was she neither a harlot nor a Canaanitess as stated in Scripture?
    But the most surprising fact is that the harlot's name is NOT Rahab after all, for there is NO woman with the name of Rahab in the whole of the Bible! In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, Rahab is a poetic or metaphorical name applied on three occasions to the land of Egypt, with the meaning of being `haughty' or `proud', (see Psalms 87:4, 89:10 and Isaiah 51:9). But these three passages have nothing to do with Joshua, Jericho, or the harlot who lived there. The same Hebrew word `rahab' is, in fact, quite correctly translated in the Authorized version as `proud' in Job 9:13 and 26:12, but in Isaiah 30:7 it is incorrectly translated as `strength'. This verse reads — in the Hebrew text — "Egypt's help is vain and worthless therefore I have called her Rahab sitting still" — (or `Egypt the motionless').
    The harlot's name is `Rakhab' (English pronunciation: `Raackharb',) a different Hebrew word to `Rahab', with a totally different meaning of "to widen" or "to make broad". It is not spelt with the Hebrew letter `He' as in Rahab, but with the letter `khet' (which has a hard gutteral aspirated sound like the `ch' in `loch' or in the German `macht'.
    The Greek alphabet, however, has no equivalent letters corresponding to either `he' or `khet'. Hence, in the Septuagint version of the Book of Joshua, the harlot's name is spelt `Ra'ab' in all passages where it occurs. And exactly the same spelling is used in the New Testament in the Greek text of Hebrews 11:31 and of James 2:25 — but NOT in Matthew 1:5. Furthermore, her name is always coupled with the designation `harlot' either directly or by association with this designation in the same context in which her name appears.
    If Salmon's wife was indeed `Rakhab' the harlot, why is it then that, in the Greek text of Matthew 1:5, it is spelt `Raxab' and not Ra'ab as it is in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 and in every passage of the Greek text of the Septuagint where the harlot's name appears? And why is it that Raxab's name in Matthew 1:5 is not coupled with the term `harlot'? This is the first and only occurrence of this name in the New Testament.
    Therefore IF Raxab was in actual fact the harlot of Jericho, then it is even more necessary to identify her here as the harlot than it is in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25. It should be noted that the letter `x' in Raxab's name is the Greek letter `chi' which has the hard `ch' sound as in the English `chord' or `Christ'. Therefore the English pronunciation of the Greek name `Raxab' in Matthew 1:5 should be `Rachab' — with a short second `a' as in cab — NOT `Rahab' and NOT `Raackharb'.
    On the other hand in Matthew 1:5 Rachab the wife of Salmon is clearly distinguished from ANY identification or association in any way with the harlot of Jericho:
    1. by the different spelling of her name in the `original' Greek,
    2. by the different pronunciation of her name,
    3. by the absence of any offensive designation attached to her name,
    4. by the absence of any reference to Jericho or any activity that took place there.

    Nor is the absence of any such additional information about Rachab designed to `cover up' possible unfavourable personal references to individual members of Israel's Royal Line and of the human ancestors of Jesus in this genealogy. The Bible does not shrink from stating unsavoury `incidents' in the lives of any of Israel's famous people. This is demonstrated in the very next verse (Matthew 1:6) by the cutting reference to Bathsheba — not by recording her name, but by bringing her name to mind only through her degrading act of adultery with King David. Again, there is the story of Judah's seduction by Tamar as told in Genesis 38:11-30.
    Thus the whole evidence of Scripture is that Salmon's wife was NOT the harlot of Jericho, and in the absence of any other conflicting information concerning her, then the conclusion must be that her ancestry was as impeccable as that of her husband.
    {Source: }
    Thus, having cleared the names of Rachab, Ruth, Salmon and Boaz, we can proceed with the Parable of Ruth.

    The Story Ruth

    First, we will discuss the most significant passages of the text as given, then we will consider the parabolic meaning of Ruth’s life.
    The Book of Ruth opens with these words:
    1Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there. And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons. And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years. And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband. Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread. Wherefore she went
    forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.
    Note that Mahlon and Chilion were EPHRATHITES, not EPHRAIMITES. Ephrata was probably the name of the founder of the settlement called Bethlehem or the name of a local god, well before the Israelites took possession of it. Bethlehem was already in existence during the days of Jacob and Esau, well before the twelve tribes returned with Moses, so that this town could not possibly have been named after Ephraim. That is complete nonsense. Gen. 35:19 records that Rachel was buried near Ephrata. Ephrata was NOT a descendant of Ephraim, as some people falsely believe, because Bethlehem-Ephrata was founded BEFORE Ephraim was even born. Thus, there is no connection between the Patriarch, Ephraim, and the town of Bethlehem-Ephrata, whose name was later changed to Bethlehem-Judah. The name change was due to the fact that the tribe of Judah settled there and took over the town. This verse is telling us that Mahlon
    and Chilion were residents of Bethlehem-Ephrata, during the days of the Judges.
    The name, Bethlehem, derives from its origin as a Canaanite town, Beit-Lahama, or “home of Lahmo,” the Chaldean god of fertility. The suffix, ‘Ephrata,’ means, “the fruitful,” as this town lay in a fruitful valley. This is the etymology of the word, ‘Bethlehem-Ephrata.’ It has nothing to do with either the Patriarch Ephraim or the tribe of Ephraim.
    In verses 11-13, Naomi bemoans the fact that she has no surviving sons to inherit the land that belongs to her.
    Verse 15 contains a Hebrew idiom, which must be properly understood. “Her gods” should be understood as meaning “her land.” In those days, the land was understood as belonging to the local gods. Hence, the expression, “thy sister in law is gone back unto her people and unto her gods,” does not mean that Orpah was going back to worship the gods of the Moabites. It simply means that Orpah had decided to stay behind in the territory of her husband, in Moab. Even though the Israelites were forbidden to worship the local gods, the idea of these gods owning the local territory survived in the idiom. E. Raymond Capt has also argued that the expression, “her gods,” refers to the land she is to inherit as the widow of her deceased husband.
    In II Kings, Chapter 5, we have the story of Elisha the prophet and Naaman, the Syrian military commander, who was afflicted with leprosy. Naaman was advised by an Israelite woman that the God of Israel could heal him of this affliction. Entering into the land of Israel, Naaman met the prophet Elisha, who told him to wash seven times in the Jordan River. After first sauspecting that Elisha was simply trying to make a fool of him, Naaman did as Elisha instructed and was completely healed. Naaman then offered Elisha payment for this miracle, but Elisha refused. Then Naaman said, in verse 17, “Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules burden of earth? For thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto Yahweh.” Naaman had assumed that Yahweh was a local god, tied to the literal earth of Palestine! In order to worship this local god, Naaman took two mules’
    worth of dirt back to Syria with him. Elisha did not try to disabuse Naaman of this false belief, but merely said, “Go in peace.”
    This story demonstrates that it was common for local gods to be associated with a particular land. By failing to understand this idiom at Ruth 1:15, Ruth and Orpah have been falsely accused of being idol-worshippers. Even if we were to take the expression literally, it would not apply to Ruth, as verse 15 only applies to Orpah. In reality, Verse 15 is merely telling us that Orpah went back to her own land.
    Note again that in verse 1:16, the words “shall be” have been added by translators!!! Without this addition, the correct translation is, “thy people ARE my people.” Again, the KJV has given fuel to the universalists by adding questionable words to the text. Gal. 4:4 confirms that Yahshua’s ancestry was pure, as He was “made under the law,” which prohibited the Israelites from marrying outside of their race, with the very specific prohibition against intermarrying with Moabites!
    Ruth is determined to go into Bethlehem-Judah with Noami, who relents and takes Ruth with her. At Verse 20, Naomi asks to be called “Mara,” meaning bitterness, because of the loss of her husband and two sons. As it turns out, Ruth will become a major blessing to Naomi, whose tragedy will turn into unexpected joy.

    Ruth Gleans During the Barley Harvest

    Chapter 2 begins the relationship between Ruth and Boaz. Ruth takes a liking to Boaz and begins gleaning food for herself in his fields. Boaz sees Ruth gleaning in the fields and tells her not to glean in anyone else’s field but his. He also tells her to help herself of his well water, if she becomes thirsty. Ruth is amazed at his generosity and asks him why he treats a stranger with such kindness. Boaz tells her she has come to the right place: the land where Yahweh dwells with His People, Israel. At Verse 14, Boaz invites her to dinner; and the courtship begins.
    At Verse 15, Boaz, the landowner, instructs his field hands to allow Ruth to glean even among the sheaves, indicating that the Wave Sheaf offering had already been made, so the time period is right after the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Barley harvest was in full swing and the countdown to Pentecost under way. Ruth gleaned for herself and for her mother-in-law, Naomi.
    In verse 20, Naomi says to Ruth, “Boaz is NEAR KIN to us, one of our next kinsmen.” Boaz is very closely related to Naomi, who is of the Tribe of Judah. But Ruth is more likely a Reubenite, as it was the Tribe of Reuben that settled in this former Moabite territory. This fact makes not difference to the Law, as the line of descent passes through the father, as long as the mother is of the correct race. The Twelve sons of Jacob had to marry non-Israelite wives. They were taken primarily from the daughters of Shem; but the daughters of Japheth and Ham were also kinswomen. Moses married a Midianite woman. This was a legal marriage, because the Midianites were descendants of Shem, who lived in the Arabian desert. This was before the Midianites became the enemies of Israel. Moreover, her father, Jethro, was a man of Yahweh, unlike the other Midianites who eventually made war against Israel.

    Naomi’s Advice to Ruth

    Toward the end of Chapter 2, Naomi actively engages in matchmaking, advising Ruth to stay in Boaz’s fields. At Ruth 3:3, Naomi suggests something quite amazing. She tells Ruth to go and lie down at Boaz’s feet while he is asleep. By any standard of courtship, this is quite a brazen thing for a woman to do. At midnight, Boaz wakes up, startled to find someone laying at his feet. He asks who it is. She says, “I am Ruth, thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.”
    Ruth is asking Boaz for his protection. Under the circumstances, it is clearly a proposal of marriage. She is also asking him to exercise his right of redemption of a near kinswoman! Boaz immediately tells her that there is another man, who is an even nearer kinsman, who has the first right of redemption. This unnamed man must be consulted first, before Boaz can follow through. At Verse 14, Boaz tells Ruth not to say anything about her actions. The two of them could be accused of fornication, if the people found out about this very bold action on the part of Ruth. At Verse 18, Naomi understands what Boaz has to do and tells Ruth to be patient and wait.
    Boaz Redeems Ruth

    In Chapter 4, Boaz finds the nearer kinsman, who has the first right to redeem Elimelech’s homestead in the country of Moab. The kinsman at first agrees to redeem the property, but then Boaz tells him that there is an additional legal matter: He must purchase the property from the widow, Ruth and raise up heirs in the name of her husband, Mahlon. Upon hearing this, the nearer kinsman declines to redeem the property, as he is not willing to raise up children in another man’s name, for another man’s inheritance. This is the answer Boaz was hoping for; and the elders of the town all witnessed the shoe ritual, by which the nearer kinsman declines to redeem the homestead.
    At Verse 10, Boaz agrees to raise up Ruth’s children in the name of Mahlon, the Judahite. At Verse 11, Ruth is compared to Rachel and Leah, confirming that Ruth is totally worthy of the name, Israelite. For Naomi, no better result could possibly have obtained; as her household was redeemed in the name of her husband and her two sons. Given the levirate law, Boaz became like her own son, raising up children in the name of Mahlon. Ruth’s son was named Obed.
    The Book concludes by reciting the genealogy of David from Pharez: Pharez > Hezron > Ram > Amminadab > Nashon > Salmon > Boaz > Obed > Jesse > David - all pure-blooded Israelites, including Pharez, whose mother was Tamar, the granddaughter of Shem. The fact that Judah had married a Canaanite woman was irrelevant. Tamar was still a virgin and had not conceived by her previous husbands. Yahweh arranged for them to die before she could be impregnated by them. Although Shelah was older than Pharez, Shelah is not even considered as inheriting the birthright, since Shelah was a half-breed.
    Since Deut. 7:7 forbids the Israelites to marry Canaanites, any offspring of such marriages are illegitimate and cannot be counted as Israelites. Pharez, despite being born out of wedlock, inherited the birthright of Judah by virtue of being a pure-blooded Adamite. This is proof that Blood counts more than marriage. Even though Pharez was a bastard by modern standards, he was still a purebred. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah confirm this as a fact, as the men of Judah had to put away their non-Israelite wives are else be cast out of the congregation forever.
    Israel took possession of the east side of the Jordan River early. Reuben, Gad and Mannasseh

    The Parabolic Interpretation

    A careful reading of the Book of Ruth shows that there are several Messianic themes running through the story. Ruth’s relationship to the Judahites of Bethlehem is a real life pantomime of Israel’s relationship to our Kinsman Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
    First of all, the fact that Ruth lives outside of Judah is important. The country of Moab symbolizes Israel’s separation from Yahweh. Ruth represents Israel in Exile, both in terms of Israel’s being divorced by Yahweh for our disobedience and also in terms of our being cast out into the wilderness of Europe, beginning with the Assyrian deportations of 745 BC, which, as it turns out, began with Manasseh, Gad and Reuben, the three easternmost Tribes.
    Ultimately, all twelve tribes were cast out into the wilderness, with Judah and Benjamin being taken captive under Sennacherib. Only the city of Jerusalem itself was spared defeat and deportation. Obviously, Yahweh had another , later deportation planned for Judah. Bethlehem-Judah was to be the birthplace of our Kinsman Redeemer, as it was the birthplace of Boaz, Ruth’s kinsman redeemer. Obed, the child of Ruth, besides being in the lineage of Our Messiah, symbolizes the New Covenant, or, the Christian Dispensation, as most Christians would say.
    The meaning of the Hebrew name, Obed, is “serving,” implying our servitude to our Kinsman Redeemer, Yahshua. Since He redeemed us, we are to be His Servants. Yahshua literally paid the price for our past sins, thus liberating us from our divorcement, widowhood, or exile, whichever symbol you prefer. Therefore, we owe Him, big time! Ruth’s relationship to Boaz is our relationship to Yahshua. He purchased our estate, so that we could ultimately inherit it again! Like Boaz, Jesus was a full-blooded Judahite through Mary, thereby fully qualified to be our Kinsman Redeemer. Praise Yahweh!
    Ruth, having submitted herself to Boaz’s authority, represents True Israel submitting ourselves to Yahshua’s authority. When she lay down at Boaz’s feet, she totally humbled herself to him. Likewise, we Israelites have to humble ourselves, completely, before Him!!! He is our leader, our – pay attention, Israel – HUSBAND TO BE. Laying ourselves at His feet, we must boldly declare ourselves to be His and His alone!! The redemption comes before the marriage. And the marriage (the Wedding Feast of the Lamb) will bring forth a child: the Kingdom of Yahweh, with the Twelve Tribes of Israel established as the government of the Kingdom. (Rev. 21:1-12.)
    Like Ruth, we Israelites are Yahshua’s “handmaids.” We are to put ourselves under the protection of His “skirts.” In this matter, we must be quite bold, as the lukewarm Christians of our day have become ashamed of Him, because He demands 100% loyalty to Him, and NO OTHER GODS!!!! The Judeo-Christians of today’s world, the lukewarm church, worship myriad gods in His name. What an embarrassment! The Judeos are represented by Orpah, who stayed in Moab, outside of Israel. Orpah does not enter the Kingdom, as she opted to stay in Moab.

    Ruth as the Bride of Christ: Analyzing Key Symbolic Verses

    Ruth 1:1. The famine in this verse, although a literal famine in Ruth’s day, can also be viewed as the End time “famine” of failure to understand Scripture, as stated in Amos 8:11-13: Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh Elohim, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, not a famine of thirst for water, but of hearing the words of Yahweh. And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north {Odinism and Nordic/Celtic paganism} even to the east {Buddhism and Hinduism}, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of Yahweh and shall not find it. In that day shall the fair virgins and the young men faint for thirst.
    Because of the lukewarm nature of modernism, with it universalism and feelgoodism, today’s version of Christianity is so lame and weak-minded that our young people run away from it; and rightly so, because it is an abomination of nonsensical doctrines that bear little resemblance to the exclusive Covenants of the Bible. The Great Apostasy prophesied by Paul at II Thessalonians 2 has taken complete hold of denominational “Christianity.” Judeo-Christianity has substituted Jew-worship and the Gospel of Integration in the place of the True Gospel of Yahweh’s Chosen People, Anglo-Saxon Israel. Apostianity is the End Times rebellion against Yahweh’s Son, Yahshua. In the Name of Christ, modern Judeo-Christianity has abandoned Christ, in ordfer to make themselves popular with His enemies.
    Mahlon and Chilion represent the two houses of Isaac, the Houses of Israel and Judah, which were cast out. Verses 8 and 9 even use the word ‘house.’ Orpah represents the cast out Israelites, who will never return to the True Faith. They will forever remain outside the fold, because they reject the exclusive doctrine of the Chosenness and separateness of True Israel. In this context, Ruth obviously represents the Remnant, the Elect, those who remain faithful to their Kinsman Redeemer.
    Yahshua told His People, Israel, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” Adamic Israel is a particular tree. It is NOT the “human race” of all races (all hominid trees), as the Jews would have us believe. Since Jesus was a Judahite, not an Edomite/Canaanite Jew, He came only as a representative of Judah, redeeming His people, Israel, as the Lamb. Since only Israel was cast out, only Israel needed to be redeemed. At the Second Coming, He will return as the Lion of Judah, to claim His Bride, which is Israel cleansed of its fornications, represented by the wise virgins of Matt. As the prophet Daniel said, “Only the wise shall understand.” The foolish virgins are playing with the gods of the non-Israelite nations; and they will pay the price of whoredom.

    Ruth 1:2-5. Elimelech and Naomi represent Abraham and Sarah, who are dead to the Judeo-Christians. The Judeos reject the Old Testament, calling it a “Jewish book,” and reinterpret the New Testament out of its historical context as the continuation of the story of the exclusivity of the Twelve Tribes and the fulfillment of Yahweh’s Promise to Redeem and save Israel.
    The entire Chapter of Isaiah 51 is relevant here:
    Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. For the LORD shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody. Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people. My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust. Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish
    away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished. Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings. For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation. Awake, awake{to your heritage is God’s people, Israel,} put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over? Therefore the redeemed of the LORD shall return, and come with singing
    unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away. I, even I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass; And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor? The captive exile hasteneth that he may be loosed, and that he should not die in the pit, nor that his bread should fail. But I am the LORD thy God, that divided the sea, whose waves roared: The LORD of hosts is his name. And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou
    art my people. Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, and wrung them out. There is none to guide her among all the sons whom she hath brought forth; neither is there any that taketh her by the hand of all the sons that she hath brought up. These two things are come unto thee; who shall be sorry for thee? desolation, and destruction, and the famine, and the sword: by whom shall I comfort thee? Thy sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as a wild bull in a net: they are full of the fury of the LORD, the rebuke of thy God. Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted, and drunken, but not with wine {Our people are afflicted by the delusion of Apostianity}: Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, even the dregs of
    the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again: But I will put it into the hand of them that afflict thee; which have said to thy soul, Bow down, that we may go over: and thou hast laid thy body as the ground, and as the street, to them that went over.
    Isaiah 51 is a total rebuke of those Israelites who have abandoned His righteousness and His Covenants and Promises to His Chosen People, Israel. The self-proclaimed “New Testament Christians” are dead to their heritage as the literal descendants of Abraham and Sarah, because they have rejected their kinship and ancestry. This spiritual suicide will lead, ultimately, to the rejection of their Covenant Relationship to Yahshua. If they reject His terms, how can He possibly accept them into the Kingdom? They are the foolish virgins, who reject their Israelite heritage. I can only say, along with Isaiah, Awake, Awake, O Israel, to your Identity as True Israel. Awaken from your stupor. Do not reject your heritage, as Esau/Edom has trained you to do! If you reject your Covenant relationship with Yahweh, your reject any possibility of the future glory of His Elect.

    Ruth 1:6-13. Naomi tries to comfort her daughters-in-law, being unable to hide her own grief at being widowed and sonless. She urges Orpah and Ruth to stay outside of the “Land of Judah,” as she sees no future from them there. Here, Naomi represents today’s Judeo-Christians, who have no hope in their Covenant relationship with Yahweh.

    Ruth 1:14-22. But Ruth will have none of it. She is determined to go back to Bethlehem, the “land” of her kinsmen. Her words in Verse 17 are truly inspiring: Where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried; Yahweh do so to me, and more also, but death part me and thee.” Ruth instinctively understands that she must remain a part of her people, Israel; and only death will separate her from her Israelite heritage. In verse 20, Noami bemoans her tragic fate, asking to be called Mara (bitter).

    Ruth 2:1. Boaz is introduced as a kinsman of her mother-in-law. Here Boaz clearly represents our KINSMAN Redeemer, Yahshua!!!!

    Ruth 2:2-3. Ruth is determined to stay in the company of Boaz. Here, she represents the Remnant, gleaning in the fields of Israel, awaiting her ultimate fate. The kinship of Ruth and Boaz is emphasized.

    Ruth 2:4-7: Boaz instructs His servants to keep a watchful eye upon Ruth. This is Yahweh keeping His tender, loving, watchful eye upon His Remnant, those who will eventually become the Bride of Christ.

    Ruth 2:8-10. Boaz, representing Yahweh, cautions Ruth, representing the Remnant, to glean only in His fields. Do not go after other gods. Do not go after the false doctrines of the false priests of Apostianity. In Verse 10, Ruth considers herself a “stranger.” This means that she is one of the lost sheep, who is willing to come back into the fold.

    Ruth 2:11-13. In these verses, Boaz (Yahweh) is telling Ruth (Israel) that her estrangement is over. She is being welcomed back into the Household of True Israel. She is awakening to her kinship relationship with Yahweh.

    Ruth 2:14-15. This is the Passover meal of the New Covenant, the Last Supper. In verse 14, she ate and was satisfied. She eats of the “bread” of the New Covenant. In verse 15, she is “risen up.” Do I have to explain what this means? It is no coincidence that the Supper is followed by the arising! This is a mini-parable of the Last Supper and the rising of Messiah from the dead! The sheaves of Verse 15 can only be the Wave Sheaf offering - Jesus Christ, the first of the FIRSTFRUITS.

    Ruth 2:16-17. Ruth continues to gleaned, meaning that she is absorbing the knowledge of the Scriptures, coming into awareness of her Covenant relationship with Yahshua.

    Ruth 2:18-23. Recall Ruth 1:20, where Naomi is bitter about her fate and sees no hope for the future. She begins to see a potentially bright future in Ruth’s courtship of Boaz. The name, Boaz, in Hebrew, means “fleetness, STRENGTH.” He is our strength, is He not? The “young men” of verse 21 represent the Israelites, who were the First Christians of Pentecost as depicted in Acts, Chapters 1 & 2. Please read those two chapters now, as they complete the thought of these verses in Ruth. In verse 23, Ruth stayed with the maidens of Bethlehem, gleaning until the end of the barley and wheat harvests. The harvest of the summer wheat coincided with the countdown to Pentecost, the harvest of the Firstfruits. (Joel 3:23-27.)

    Ruth 3:1-3. Naomi becomes inspired with Ruth’s potential marriage to Boaz. In Verse 3, Naomi tells Ruth, ‘Make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking.” Although the House of Judah in Judea understood their kinship with Messiah, the Dispersed House of Israel did not. They were still estranged. Jesus tells us, “Thou wilt not have gone over the nations of Israel until the son of Man be come.” In other words, the full restoration of Israel to her covenant relationship cannot occur until the Remnant of all twelve tribes come into realization of their Israelite identity.

    Ruth 3:4-7. This is where we must be bold and declare ourselves for Yahshua only!!! We, His Remnant, the future Bride of Christ, must submit ourselves humbly to Him, laying ourselves down AT HIS FEET, waiting for Him to return (awaken). The foolish virgins will not understand why they have been rejected. They thought that they were faithful, But there lamps (Faith) went out, as went awhoring after the gods of multiculturalism. As Daniel said, “Only the wise shall understand.” In these verses, Ruth represents Israel understanding what she must do in order to prepare herself as the Bride of Christ. Naomi represents the Old Testament (RIGHTEOUSNESS) wisdom that urges her on. The foolish Judeos have abandoned righteousness in favor of feelgoodism.

    Ruth 3:9. This is powerful verse for Christian Identity. Boaz asks. “WHO ART THOU?” Do you know your Identity? Do you understand your potential for becoming the Bride of Christ? Ruth’s response is both positive and humble: I am Ruth, thine handmaid (servant, We are yahweh’s servant people); Spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman. Glory, Halleluyah! This is True Israel finally recognizing, after two thousand years of Gospel preaching, her true relationship with her Kinsman Redeemer! The Firstfruits of Pentecost understood it, but it has taken 2,000 years for the rest of us to understand.

    Ruth 3:10-14. Boaz promises to do his duty as Ruth’s Kinsman Redeemer. But there is a nearer kinsman who must first be consulted before he can do this. The unnamed nearer kinsman is symbolic of the pseudo-Christian churches, WHO ARE NOT WILLING TO MARRY RUTH! It is the dead church of the Apostasy, whose name will be forgotten as the memory of all losers is forgotten by those who receive the joy of victory!!!!!!! Ruth doesn’t want him anyway. Praise Yahshua! Apostianity has its chance to right by Ruth, but it is too much of a burden. They are not willing to let go of their present delusion of un-Scriptural “salvation.” These Judeo-churches prance around proclaiming themselves to be the “Bride of Christ.” In reality, they are nothing but the Great Whore of Revelation. Verse 14 states, “And she lay at his feet until morning,” meaning that True Israel waits until the dawn of the Second Coming for fulfillment. Just as
    the woman of Revelation 12 is to remain hidden until the Judgment Day, Boaz instructs Ruth, “Let it not be known that a woman came into the floor.”

    Ruth 3:15. The veil that hides her identity will become her wedding veil!!!!!

    Ruth 3:16. Again, Ruth’s identity is the main concern. Naomi asks her, “Who art thou?”
    Ruth explains that she now anticipates that she is a bride-to-be, the lady in waiting for her groom.

    Ruth 3:17. I believe that the six measures of barley represent the entire record of the Bible for True Israel, from the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden, six thousand years ago. We, the Remnant, understand the whole story. We are not going empty-handed to our mother-in-law. We give our ancestors and relatives due respect. We give them wheat, barley and wine. It is their decision to accept it or reject it.

    Ruth 3:18. Yahshua will not rest until He completes His mission.

    Ruth 4:1-5. These verses detail the legal requirements for redeeming Ruth and her property. She must be redeemed before she can be married.
    Here is an explanation of the law of redemption by a Judeo-priest:
    The word redemption has its roots in the Old Testament, where the word could mean buying back property or freeing a slave by paying the price or amount he owed. According to Jewish law, a Jew could be sold into slavery for a maximum of six years. The seventh year, called the year of redemption, he must be set free. If he was to be set free before his six years were over, his master was compensated for the remaining years in his contract. Redemption also applied to the recovery of land. In the selling of property, there was always a redemption clause written into the deed stating the time and circumstances whereby the property might be redeemed. The deed was then sealed with seven seals. The law included a clause that made provision for a family member to step in and redeem the property if the seller was unable to do so himself at the specified period. The idea was to keep the property in the family. The family member who would fill this role was known in
    Hebrew as the "goel" or kinsman redeemer. If no redeemer, or "goel", stepped forward at the specified time, the property was then permanently transferred to the new ownership. This law is explained in Leviticus 25.
    The laws of redemption are covered in Leviticus 25:23-55. Boaz is following these laws to the letter. Yahshua must also follow these laws in order to redeem Israel and ultimately restore the earth to our dominion, as His Bride.

    Ruth 4:5-10. Since Ruth was a childless widow, Boaz also performed the duty of levirate marriage, so that the firstborn son of Ruth could carry on in the name of Mahlon. Levirate law is covered in Deut. 25:5-10. Symbolically, cast-off, widowed Israel, in being married to Yahshua, is reclaimed in the name of Yahweh, our first “husband.”

    Ruth 4:11-12. Ruth is to become as famous as Rachel, Leah and Tamar, not to mention Sarah and Rebekah. Shall we include Eve as well? Of course, we Israelites are her descendants as well. No one in the universe has a greater anticipation of the redemption and restoration as our mother, Eve. She knows that it was her mistake in the Garden that led to all of this drama in the first place. So, we remember her as well, with compassion and sorrow. But JOY COMETH IN THE MORNING! Israel and the Adamic Race will be restored, and very soon! Eve’s mistake will soon be overcome; and the children of the devil, who began this era of deception, will pay the price for their crimes. Yahweh has proclaimed it; and no earthly power can undo that which has been written! Let us not forget Elizabeth and Mary, who bore us John and Jesus, for without the events of the First Advent, the Second would not be possible.
    How many of you End Times women of Israel will step up, willing to bear the Children of the Restoration?

    Ruth 4:13. Praise Yahweh! THE WEDDING FEAST OF THE LAMB!

    Ruth 4:14. Joy in the Household of Naomi. Her bitterness has been turned into joy, SEVENFOLD. As per Leviticus 26, which contains the SEVEN TIMES PUNISHMENT, Israel’s glory will be restored sevenfold. Can you imagine?

    Ruth 4:15-16. Naomi, symbol of the Old Testament prophets and lawgivers, nurses Obed (Servant), the daughter of Ruth, the Remnant Bride. We in Christian identity have restored the Old Testament ot its rightful place in our history and heritage. By teaching from the Old Wine and the New Wine, we are the only ones who qualify as the Bride of Christ.

    Ruth 4:17. Israel Restored. The lineage of Messiah continues to this day! Caucasian Israel, His Servant People, is destined to give birth to the NEW CREATURE anticipated since the foundation of the world: the coming of the Sons of God. (Romans 8:18-22.)

    Ruth 4:18-22. The lineage of Messiah confirmed. Since the Covenants made by Yahweh with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are FOREVER, no one can deny the Bride of Christ, Israel purified, her inheritance. The Bride of Christ is making herself ready as we speak! Come, Children, INHERIT THE KINGDOM.

  9. #39

    Re: Pastor James rebuked by Pastor Wickstrom

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Switzer View Post
    Eli James, despite sometimes going out on strange limbs, is a good guy and a good pastor.
    Someone has changed their tune now though...

    Anyway, to my point. Back in 2008, not long before the Feast of Tabernacles which was due to take place at Acworth, Kennesaw, Georgia, while a guest of Jonathan Williams on Unfair & Unbalanced on Talkshoe, Eli James flat out denied that Jesus Christ and Yahweh were one and the same. He refuted (neither for the first time) the oneness doctrine that just about every Christian on Earth believes stating he didn't believe it. Jesus was not God in the flesh (John 1:1) just a son of God.

    Williams made a rebuttal of Eli James claim shortly afterwords on a subsequent show and later thereafter made it the basis of an entire sermon on oneness at the Feast of Tabernacles to which Eli James also attended as a speaker, in the knowledge that he would be confronting Eli's stance. I have raised this issue privily with Bill Finck in time past. He can I am sure, confirm Eli's position on this matter. Both Bill and I were, and I assume still are, in complete agreement that Eli's position on the oneness doctrine is absolutely absurd. For his faults Jim Wickstrom is at least right on this one issue.

    This is not a condemnation of Eli James the man, but in the light of more recent events I fail to see how anyone can further entrust him to teach sound doctrine on a number of crucial subjects. But then again, the same may be said of several other 'pastors' of late. In my opinion it is way past time that the more discerning (if indeed there are any) members of their respective fellowships quit the absurd theological fellatio so unmistakeably evident, and took these men to task.

    By their fruits ye shall know them. Yes, indeed we shall..

  10. #40
    Hardcore DSCI seedliner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Hell On Earth!
    “The righteous mother of the seven children spake also as follows to her offspring: I was a pure virgin, and went not beyond my father’s house; but I took care of the built-up rib. No destroyer of the desert, or ravisher of the plain, injured me; nor did the destructive, deceitful, snake, make spoil of my chaste virginity; and I remained with my husband during the period of my prime.” (4 Maccabees 18:7-8)

Similar Threads

  1. King James or Authorised King James?
    By TrueBeliever in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-08-2018, 04:44 PM
  2. Universalism (with Eli James)
    By in forum Older Sermons (1998-2013)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-15-2017, 03:50 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts